ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday approved bail petitions filed by PTI founder Imran Khan in eight cases related to the May 9 riots, setting aside the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) decision that had earlier rejected the relief.
The apex court summoned both parties to its chamber at 1:00 pm for issuance of the written order.
The bench hearing the matter was reconstituted earlier in the day.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi replaced Justice Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb on the three-member bench, which is headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi.
During the hearing, Special Prosecutor Zulfiqar Naqvi resumed his arguments after proceedings were adjourned yesterday owing to his illness.
At the outset, Chief Justice Tahya Afridi posed two questions to the prosecution: whether final findings could be given in a bail case, and whether the principle of consistency applied, given that the Supreme Court had earlier granted bail to accused in another May 9 case involving conspiracy allegations.
Responding, the prosecutor argued that judicial observations in bail matters are always temporary and do not affect trial proceedings. He cited precedents from 1996 to 2024 where the apex court had held that remarks in bail orders are interim in nature.
The CJP remarked that the bench would not allow arguments on the merits of the main case, stressing that facts must be determined by the trial court.
During arguments, references were made to the cipher case and bail granted to PTI leader Ejaz Chaudhry. The prosecutor submitted that the circumstances of Chaudhry’s case differed, as the accused were not named in the FIR and evidence was lacking. Chief Justice Afridi, however, noted that in all three precedents cited, accused facing conspiracy allegations had been granted bail.
He directed the prosecution to establish how the present case differed from earlier instances.
The hearing was briefly adjourned at 11:30 am and resumed with further arguments from the prosecution, who reiterated that multiple Supreme Court rulings had consistently held bail observations as provisional and non-prejudicial to trial.
The case was adjourned after the court announced that a written order would be issued later in the day.
